To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Subject: RE: ibc 2000 adoption
From: "Haan, Scott M." <HaanSM(--nospam--at)ci.anchorage.ak.us>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 08:11:17 -0900
The Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska is almost done adopting the 2000 IBC.
There have been very few proposed amendments that have been approved by the
code adoption committee. Anchorage will always be Seismic Design Category D
because S1<.75 and SD1>=.2 always, SDS>=.5 always. See Table 1616.3(1) and
The one notable amendment is that the perforated shearwall methodology
outlined in the draft 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions will continue to be
accepted. Want a free copy of an example perforated shearwall or IBC
seismic plan check Excel spreadsheet? mailto:haansm(--nospam--at)ci.anchorage.ak.us.
The IBC seismic provisions are less ambiguous and have fewer typo's than the
UBC did. Once you figure out the way the IBC is laid out, the loading
provisions leave less to the imagination. My only gripe is that almost all
of the material chapter stuff is in separate $100+ books.
The State of Alaska has adopted the architectural IBC provisions and is
discussing the structural provisions.
Scott M Haan P.E.
Plan Review Engineer
Building Safety Division http://muni.org/building,
Development Services Department,
Municipality of Anchorage
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dadie(--nospam--at)bjgse.com [SMTP:dadie(--nospam--at)bjgse.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 5:14 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: ibc 2000 adoption
> just wondering how building officials are adopting the ibc 2000 in former
> non ubc districts. are they adopting in with major additions / deletions
> revisions / amendments - or are they pretty much adopting it as is? are
> there local restrictions on how "bad" a seismic category can get?